The More Copyright Holders Move Up The Stack, The More They Put Everyone At Risk

from the taking-down-security-certs-is-bad dept

A little over a year ago, Matt Holt, who created the Caddy Server that helps make it easier to protect websites with HTTPS encryption, posted a hypothetical blog post, from the year 2022, in which he worried that enterprising and persistent copyright lawyers would have continued moving up the stack with their DMCA notices, and started to use the process to get HTTPS security certificates removed.

A lawyer need only be successful in convincing one of those four “choke points” by threatening legal action in order to suffocate the site. (There are others, like ISPs, which operate more generally, and we skip them for brevity.) These entities totally control the site’s availability, which is one crucial dimension of secure systems. Here they are again:

Site owner. He or she can voluntarily remove the site/content.

Web host. They can destroy the site owner’s account or files.

Domain registrar. They can cancel or transfer ownership of the domain name.

DNS provider. They can make the site inaccessible via hostname.

Now that it’s 2022, a site needs HTTPS in order to be trusted by browsers. At very least, this means they show an indicator above the page. Maybe it even means the browser shows a warning before navigating to the site. Either way, HTTPS is critical to a site’s availability and integrity.

DMCA lawyers are clever, and they realize this emerging trend. They contact a site’s CA and demand the site be disconnected for violating the law (despite lack of a court case). The CA, operating without policy for such requests and afraid of legal ramifications, revokes the site’s certificate.

Within hours, browsers begin to refuse connecting to the site on port 443 and warning flags fly instead, scaring users away. Browsers don’t revert to port 80 anymore because HTTPS is expected and using HTTP is effectively a downgrade attack. Visitors aren’t sure what to do, and the site goes offline around the globe.

We've raised some questions in the past about this process of copyright holders moving up the stack -- and not just targeting the content hosts, but companies further upstream, including ad providers, domain registers and registrars, and the like. There are serious issues with each of these, but going after security certificates seems especially pernicious.

But Matt was a bit off in his predicted timing on this. After his article ran, we learned of at least a few examples of copyright holders going after security certificate providers. Take for example this copyright notice that was sent to Squarespace (the host), Tucows (the domain register), and Let's Encrypt (the security certificate provider).

“In response to a court order against Sci-Hub, Comodo CA has revoked four certificates for the site,” Jonathan Skinner, Director, Global Channel Programs at Comodo CA informed TorrentFreak.

“By policy Comodo CA obeys court orders and the law to the full extent of its ability.”

Comodo refused to confirm any additional details, including whether these revocations were anything to do with the current ACS injunction. However, Susan R. Morrissey, Director of Communications at ACS, told TorrentFreak that the revocations were indeed part of ACS’ legal action against Sci-Hub.

We've obviously covered a lot about the Sci-hub story over the years, and the weird quixotic focus by some to take down a site focused on (of all things) better sharing academic knowledge (especially to academics in the developing world). It's already sickening enough the level to which some copyright holders have gone to effectively shut down a library, but going after the security certificate is beyond the pale.

The DMCA allows for approaching a variety of different intermediaries, from network communications, to hosts, to caching, to "information location tools" (i.e. search engines), but I have a very difficult time seeing how any of that applies to security certificate providers (or, for that matter, to domain registers).

Even more bizarre is that going after the security certificate doesn't stop any actual infringement -- it just makes users a lot less safe. And yet, it's coming from the very same copyright holders who keep trying to tell people they shouldn't pirate content because it exposes them to malware and viruses and dangerous computers and the like. But removing security certificates would make that a much more serious problem. And yet, here we have a case where ACS went after a security certificate, a judge okayed it, and Comodo played along. That's dangerous for the way the internet works and is kept secure. If they want to go after the hosts, go after the hosts. Destroying the ability to protect users by encrypting the traffic is just evil.

Reader Comments

Malware and putting everyone at risk is the bread and butter of copyright enforcement. Rootkits in your CDs, campaigning against encryption, demanding all removal of privacy and anonymity. How else are they going to demand their pound of flesh from low-hanging fruit?

The world could go to hell tomorrow and copyright enforcers will still worry that someone, somewhere might have access to a few numbers they think might have been illegitimate. Seriously, if a report was put out that hands contribute to copyright infringement, their people would be roaming the streets wielding axes while looking for wrists to sever.

Re: Must be nice in that world of yours

Mistakes happen in life, and people abuse things in life, so I’m not sure what you’re suggesting. If we ditched every law every time something went amiss, there’d be no laws. And obviously that wouldn’t work.

Re: Re: Must be nice in that world of yours

Mistakes happen in life, and people abuse things in life, so I’m not sure what you’re suggesting.

I'm not 'suggesting' anything, I'm flat out stating that the idea that 'if you're not doing anything wrong on your site you've nothing to worry about' is demonstrably wrong.

You can be completely innocent and still get hammered by the law, intentionally or accidentally, in large part because of how bad and one-sided the law currently is, with some having argued in the past that it should be even more one-sided.

As for 'ditched every law every time something went amiss' you were the first to bring that up, no-one else has mentioned it that I can see so at best that would be a mistake, if not outright strawman on your part.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Must be nice in that world of yours

And you wonder why you get flagged when the best you can come up with as a 'rebuttal' is a baseless lie/ad hom(you know, that think you constantly whine that everyone is doing to you)?

Mind, I never expected anything less from a dishonest hypocrite such as yourself, but it does nicely highlight why it would be a waste of time for me or anyone else to explain why you get flagged by default for anyone who might not be as familiar with you, even if you'd never understand it.

Still, thanks for yet another laugh, you're at least always good for that.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Must be nice in that world of yours

We've already heard you rant from your multiple IP addresses that nobody takes this site seriously.

Yet you spend your time here whining every time copyright enforcement fucks up. Which, as records indicate, is more often than not. And you even cheered on Shiva Ayyadurai's attempts to have the site taken down. If nobody takes the site seriously you wouldn't care so much, but thanks for being such a fucking obvious tsundere.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

You deflect from the point made with a buzzword. You assume the intent of the poster because of your beliefs, then insult them based on your assumption. Then you launch a pointless attack Techdirt without using anything to back up whatever point you want to make.

You think every one of your posts is a nuke when they are, at best, a sparkler.

If you think the point in the post to which you replied is “FUD”, explain why with examples that back up your point. If you believe the commenter has “piracy addiction”, show us the proof. Do something—anything!—that creates a comment worth replying to with something more than an explanation of just how awful you are at what you do. I mean, even I can only do this shit for so long before I get bored and go browse a porn site—and masturbation is still far more satisfying.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

It is your fault that you assume that the commonly-held-around-here belief of “copyright sucks” is the same thing as saying “I want everything for free”. It is your fault that you never have anything substantial to say on any given subject. It is your fault that you get treated the way you do—and it is your responsibility to change your behavior if you want commenters here to treat you better.

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

1) What, exactly, does the law say that an ISP must adhere to?2) How is said law interpreted by the courts?3) Has it been tested in court?4) How do attorneys view same?

Inquiring minds want to know how one is able to adhere to a law when no one can explain wtf it says or how to comply and no one can agree on any particular pov. This is by design in order to maximize the quantity of fines levied.

Malware

removing security certificates would make that [malware] a much more serious problem

Exactly the point. As it stands, too many infringing sites offer perfectly safe content, so the risk of malware is judged acceptable by the consuming public. If the rightsholders can increase the risk of malware being served to infringing consumers, that makes infringement less safe, which (the rightsholders hope) will act as a deterrent. No other deterrents have worked, and offering a better product is simply not an option (because it would require admitting that their current product is not good enough), so inventing new deterrents is their latest tack.

Re: Re: Malware

While the copyright enforcement divisions have generally been overzealous in their efforts and willfully blind to collateral damage, I don't think there's much risk that this particular offensive will hurt authorized sites. This offensive only hurts sites that care about their reputation and care about protecting their users, both of which are attributes typically absent in authorized sites. They rely on their status as the authorized distributor, not on their reputation, to drive traffic to them. They've never been meaningfully held to account for harming their customers, so why would they care about securing the connection?

Re: Re: Re: Malware

Yeah, it's not as though authorized sites or initiatives have fallen under the dragnet that copyright enforcement uses. Such as Viacom charging YouTube for content Viacom uploaded, or HBO asking Google to delist HBO.com...

About the only reason why those moves ultimately weren't as self-destructive as they should have been is because Google was kind (or dumb) enough to catch those errors. Which copyright enforcement loathes, in any case, because it gives people reason to doubt the accuracy of their methods, so they expend a lot of resources on damage control and demanding that judges offer them benefit of the doubt.

They've made it clear from Day 1 that your definitions of "authorized sites" don't matter jack shit. They're working to make sure their demands are unchallenged, consequences be damned. It's been this way since the "sue them all" campaigns started and there's been no reason to believe this will be any different.

Re: Yeah, it's a crime how outlaws don't get protected!

Re: Re: Yeah, it's a crime how outlaws don't get protected!

This includes so called rights holders who have stoles public created knowledge. If ht public pays for its development the public owns the rights to use it. Not some thieving low life company whose only contribution to the knowledge creation was to slap a label of ownership on public paid for knowledge such as created at public universities.

Re: Re: Yeah, it's a crime how outlaws don't get protected!

For your infomation, the academic publishers charge libraries excessive amounts for bundles of journals. Indeed they have become so expensive that many university libraries can no longer afford to pay for all the journals in the fields that are taught at the university.

Also, the people posting to Sci Hub, and using it for obtaining papers are the authors and editors of the journals, who are not paid by the publishers, and for some publications have to find page fees to get published.

In this case, the freeloaders are the academic journals, who do very little of the work of publishing a journal, but who make all the profits that there are in scientific journals.

Re: Yeah, it's a crime how outlaws don't get protected!

Now prove how intellectual, open to opposing ideas, and insightful Techdirt is with the dog-pile of ad hom, and censoring this SERIES of comments. You love to hide ideas don't like, so I'll make more clicks.

Re: Re: Yeah, it's a crime how trolls don't get protected!

So, should the website admins at Techdirt step in to protect comments that are flagged by Techdirt the community? Are you saying that the community should not be able to flag comments? Or are you saying it offends you that any comments should be hidden as an affront to free speech, including spam and trolling?

Re: Re: Re: Yeah, it's a crime how trolls don't get protected!

Uh... "Gary": NONE of those.

I state that this site which claims to be for practically unlimited "free speech" can't bear that my little bits of text be seen as others.

AND that it's not "the community" without an Administator at least okaying. Techdirt WILL NOT STATE any of the details, isn't "transparent", but tacitly claims is NO administrator or moderation ever, which is almost certainly a lie.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Yeah, it's a crime how trolls don't get protected!

You mis-understand, or more likely, deliberately misrepresent what free speech means, it means that you can publish you speech at your own expense without a government acting to prevent you, it does not mean that you can demand other publish it for you at their expense, and it most certainly does mean that you can demand that people listen to you.

> "free speech" does not mean that you can demand other publish it for you at their expense,

Techdirt offers this opportunity for ME to publish my views of its own notion, advertises as and provides code that thereby makes it a public forum. It should be Neutral, but clearly the site sides with piratey fanboys and disadvantages me: viewpoint discrimination.

> and it most certainly does mean that you can demand that people listen to you.

First, you probably left out "not".

Anyhoo, your notion of public discussion precludes just flicking your eyes over a bit of text and moving on if don't agree? You'd better gut up gradually by reading me then, or will melt into a puddle of jelly in reality.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

As you have repeatedly proven, you mistake “privately-owned” for “private” and “open to the public” for “public property”.

A privately-owned platform can still show bias against viewpoints because the owners/operators of that platform have First Amendment rights, too—specifically the right of association. As a privately-owned platform that has an “open to the public” comments section, Techdirt has no legal, moral, or ethical obligation to host your speech. No law or statute gives you the right to force Techdirt into hosting your speech and you damn well know it because if one did, you would have sued Mike Masnick by now.

Your speech would remain unhidden were it not for the blatant, spiteful antagonism you put on display. You would receive far less counter-spite in return, as well. But since you refuse to do both that and engage in good-faith arguments about the given subject of a column, you receive both scorn and flaggings. When you lie awake at night, staring at the familiar ceiling above you and wondering how the hell your life has come to the point where you can only feel anything by trolling a tech blog that you despise on a daily basis, just remember: You did that to yourself.

I would love to hear your legal and moral justifications for not allowing the owners of a privately owned website to have complete control of what appears on it. It should be good for a laugh if nothing else.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Yeah, it's a crime how trolls don't get protected!

> AND that it's not "the community" without an Administator at least okaying.

And you'd be wrong. Comments are hidden once they reach a specific number of flags. I've seen some of your ad-hominem attacks get hidden the moment I click the flag. Most of the time some other lucky soul gets that honor. Just to be thorough I usually unhide, flag then re-hide all of your drivel.

The community dislikes you. Take the hint. Failing that, learn to form a complete thought and type it all in one comment.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Yeah, it's a crime how trolls don't get protected!

I will often click on the hidden (Note: Not deleted, but marked as shit) posts. They are always cringeworthy, and I quickly regret it.Just keep harping on how we have to listen to you "Legal" speech, no matter how many times you are told that is irrelevant. Comments are flagged for being off topic, spam and/or trollish. Enjoy your sovereign rights.

Do you actullay froth at the mouth or do you just sound like it?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Freedom of speech” is the freedom from prior restraint of speech via governmental power. Speech of all kinds have consequences—mostly social, sometimes legal—but the First Amendment does not protect you from (most of) those consequences.

“Freedom of speech” is the freedom of speaking your mind from whatever platform will have you. If the people who own/operate/moderate a privately-owned platform decide that they do not want to host your speech on their platform (or that your speech deserves lesser weight than the speech of others), that is their right—even if the platform is ostensibly open to the public. “Privately-owned” is not the same as “private”, and “open to the public” is not the same as “public property”.

“Freedom of speech” is the freedom to form cogent arguments that make valid points and invite further discussion…just as much as it is the freedom to engage in ad hom attacks that have nothing to do with the issues being discussed.

You can complain all you want about Big Bad Techdirt is hiding your speech, even though I can see any of your comments by clicking the “show hidden comment” link (and all of your comments are visible on the mobile/“lite” version of the site). You can whine about how you are being “censored”, even though all of your speech is still stored on the site and Techdirt has no legal power to prevent you from reproducing your speech on any other platform. In the end, you accomplish nothing beyond helping everyone else form a better argument against you and your bullshit.

For that, I thank you. Your years-long ceaseless trolling, your self-destructive spite for a tech blog, has made me better at putting together an argument that does not rely on insults. After all, you are literally too dumb to insult. 🙂

@ “Freedom of speech” is the freedom from prior restraint of speech via governmental power.

SO you're for corporate / company / "private" censorship, even on a site that provides HTML for MY use, voluntarily giving up ITS right to control? WRONG.

And again, kid, READ THE SANDVIG DECISION in which courts are coming round to the view that "platforms" are places where The Public has First Amendment Right -- barring the usual common law reasons that also apply everywhere (in the US).

Re:

(Just for the record: The comment to which you replied had been held up in moderation for a while before becoming visible. I imagine that would surprise you. I cannot imagine that it will make you any less irritable. C’est la vie…)

Yes, I am for “private” “censorship” because it is a form of “soft” censorship—a way of telling people “we don’t do that here”. If Twitter banned me, that would not give them the right to ban me from another site; it is simply their way of saying “we don’t do that here” and punishing me for not listening. I have no legal right to force Twitter into letting me have an account, regardless of its status as an “open to the public” platform, because the owners/operators of Twitter have a legal right to choose whether the platform should be associated with me (and vice versa).

Twitter giving me the boot would not prevent me from speaking my mind elsewhere, either. The same goes for Techdirt hiding your comments: That does not prevent you from reposting those comments on Tumblr, Blogger, Kinja's blogging service, or whatever platform would have you. Shit, if you have the know-how and the dosh, you could even buy some webhosting and own all your own content. (The IndieWeb crowd could likely set you up with some good options, if’n you asked nicely.) You worry so much about a single platform ruining your “free speech” that you fail to ask yourself how to route around your worst fear.

Oh, and as for dissent: The issue is that you seem to care more about insulting people than you care about having a cogent discussion about points with which you, I, and other commenters disagree. Avoid the insults and the SovCit lingo, see where that gets you. Or don’t—your choice, not mine.

Re: Yeah, it's a crime how outlaws don't get protected!

"outlaw sites", lol

It's Sci-Hub. It's not a pirate site supplying video games or a malware/scam site. It's making scientific knowledge widely and publicly available (that was initially released in free, publicly available forms) instead of behind paywalls.

Re: Yeah, it's a crime how outlaws don't get protected!

Also christ, what the hell is wrong with you, you posted SIX times in a row, are you moonlighting as a professional spammer? Learn some basic internet etiquette, seriously. It's pathetic enough you're shilling for copyright trolls as it is, without being a spammy nuisance.

Re: Re: Yeah, it's a crime how outlaws don't get protected!

Also christ, what the hell is wrong with you, you posted SIX times in a row, are you moonlighting as a professional spammer? Learn some basic internet etiquette, seriously. It's pathetic enough you're shilling for copyright trolls as it is, without being a spammy nuisance.

I am NOT "christ", not even close. It's a common notion, though, guess comparatively...

Anyhoo, I'm using my "free speech" to protest the thousands of my comments that have been censored, and the near certainty that my comments / opinion here which are fine under common law, would be / are censored.

And in five minutes. Now, how many readers were through in five minutes? How many of those clicked "report"? A handful at most! Techdirt isn't very popular. So I've nearly proved that it's Administrator action.

Re: Re: Re: Yeah, it's a crime how outlaws don't get protected!

Re: Re: Re: Yeah, it's a crime how common law protected!

So you just spam us to "Prove" your comments are worthy? Sorry we violate your sovereign immunity, but anytime I see an AC post my mouse races to the "Flag" button by reflex - I'm I'm sure many in the community are on alert that your posts in particular are off topic, trollish, and often about how you are feeling butt-hurt because we won't listen.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Yeah, it's a crime how common law protected!

Mainly you state that your notions are so fragile, and yourselves so childish, that you cannot bear for my little bits of text to even be seen! Lest it influence weak minds, I guess.

Oh, and you have no self-awareness of that.

Anyone reasonable reading: this has been going for years now, THOUSANDS of my comments hidden for no actual reason. Sure, I look a bit childish and spammy, but Techdirt won't stop playing this game, FUNNY in itself.

But I have had success killing zombie "accounts" who resurrect after YEARS dormant! Those are nailed-down fact, inexpicable. Wonder just how many of these "accounts" and "ACs" are real?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yeah, it's a crime how common law protected!

The reason they're hidden is you're an obnoxious idiot whose opinions are quite literally worthless to the human species as a whole, and are judged as such by the community.

The real problem here is your lack of self-awareness to realize that, and instead see your spam comments being downvoted as spam comments as somehow a sign of a conspiracy.

I suppose you're not entirely to blame; right wing media organizations such as Fox News have been dumbing down their audiences for years, peddling substanceless conspiracy garbage for the purposes of right-wing propaganda and getting their voter base worked up, and unsurprisingly there is a generation that exists that literally can't distinguish actual factual-based news from nonsensical political propaganda, or outright false garbage.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yeah, it's a crime how common law protected!

> The reason they're hidden is you're an obnoxious idiot whose opinions are quite literally worthless to the human species as a whole, and are judged as such by the community.

I soldier on, despite your rabid extremism.

And I'm certain that anyone reading with an open mind, not you piratey fanboys of Techdirt, simply don't agree that I'm far out of normal, certainly aren't offended by me promoting the Copyright Clause, which is merely in the country's founding document, and utterly supported in the body of law.

For anyone new: Underlying the censoring is that the pirates of Techdirt simply can't stand anyone to support copyright, believe that you should be "free" to take all content, and the creators can starve. So they have to flail for why my views are censored.

Re:

Artistic works cannot enter the public domain until decades after an artist’s death, taking away any chance that fans of that artist will be able to create and grow culture by using those works as the basis of new works. The DMCA’s notice-and-takedown system does not allow for a proper counternotification until after access to the potentially-infringing content has been disabled. Copyright as it stands now exists as a welfare system for the rich and the people lucky enough to hold a copyright on a successful piece of art.

If copyright still seems reasonable to you under those circumstances, you can have it. Until and unless those particular factors—among others—are changed to better balance the deal back towards the interests of the general public, copyright can kiss my pale White American ass.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Your views amount to contrarianism for the sake of it. If we thought you were posting anything in a good-faith attempt to create an actual dialogue, we would treat you with less contempt than you have proven over and over and over that you deserve. But every time you think you have a point, you include needless insults and ad hom attacks because you cannot stand the idea that you simply cannot argue your points with conviction and sincerity. You do not believe in copyright; you believe in pissing off people who think copyright has even the tiniest of flaws.

Ok, I'll bite.I think it would be fair to say that almost everyone who is a regular around here accepts and approves of the Copyright Clause. The thing we discuss is what it should mean when it says "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". If you spend more time explaining how gatekeeping is a legitimate curating function, then great. Your posts won't get flagged. If someone asserts that a public university system is already getting public tax money specifically to promote the Progress of Science and you call them a pirate in response, then you will just keep getting flagged.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Least it's easy

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Least it's easy

Guys? Please don't feed the troll. Someone apparently ignored this advice, he ate after midnight and now we're seeing all this mindless spamming. For the love of God, don't get him wet — one of him is enough.

thats a problem

A court compelling the revocation of a certificate is a compulsion to testify a certain thing.A signed certificate is an attestation, by the CA, that the information is true and correct to the best of their knowledge, compelling a revocations is compelling them to say "no, what we said earlier is not/no-longer true" That's surely a first amendment violation.

Re: thats a problem

It sure would be nice if we could get courts and politicians to properly understand the constitution in the context of technology. But that would require them to understand technology, or the constitution.

In this case the ACS is in a bit of a bind, as those posting the papers, and those looking at the papers are also the authors and editors of the papers they publish. That makes going after the actual infringers a risky business, but going after Sci Hub is only slightly less risky for them.

All they are likely to achieve is a more rapid adoption of open access journal in the scientific community.

Re: Censored! Yeah, it's a crime how outlaws don't get protected!

Re: Re: Censored! Yeah, it's a crime how outlaws don't get protected!

I just read the Dunning-Kruger entry on Wikipedia since I've seen it mentioned over a dozen times today. I'm pretty sure I understood the concept, but now I'm not sure if that belief means I have no idea what I just read.

Yeah, it's a crime how outlaws don't get protected!

It's Sci-Hub and persons using it who go out of bounds. *You / they thereby have no basis in law for complaining.*

Users of outlaw sites MUST accept any and all risks therefrom.

All you have to do is keep your paws off what belongs to others, kids. You are not being tortured.

NOR IS society losing by "information" not "shared". The studies, regardless how funded, are properly libraried and available. Libraries cost money: need SOME revenue. You're as ever blithely assuming that systems can withstand unlimited freeloaders.

And you cannot reasonably claim that a "researcher" CAN'T afford to pay for access but CAN afford much larger costs of equipment and materials to make useful products.

Now prove how intellectual, open to opposing ideas and insightful Techdirt is with the dog-pile of ad hom, and censoring this SERIES of comments. You love to hide ideas don't like, so I'll make more clicks. -- Here's another.

Going after the security certificate seems like it would have limited effectiveness. If the browser gives a "revoked" warning, in many browsers people can blow past that warning (especially once it's known that certificates are being targeted), so it doesn't even really do much to prevent infringement.

And it is my understanding that certificates can be made which do not allow revocation. Plus they could just get a new certificate from a different CA rather quickly; this isn't like a domain name where transfer can be blocked.

Someone state EXACTLY WHY this is censored. It's JUST MY VIEW.

It's Sci-Hub and persons using it who go out of bounds. *You / they thereby have no basis in law for complaining.*

Users of outlaw sites MUST accept any and all risks therefrom.

All you have to do is keep your paws off what belongs to others, kids. You are not being tortured.

NOR IS society losing by "information" not "shared". The studies, regardless how funded, are properly libraried and available. Libraries cost money: need SOME revenue. You're as ever blithely assuming that systems can withstand unlimited freeloaders.

And you cannot reasonably claim that a "researcher" CAN'T afford to pay for access but CAN afford much larger costs of equipment and materials to make useful products.

Now prove how intellectual, open to opposing ideas and insightful Techdirt is with the dog-pile of ad hom, and censoring this SERIES of comments. You love to hide ideas don't like, so I'll make more clicks.

Re: Re: Someone state EXACTLY WHY this is censored. It's JUST MY VIEW.

None of what you posted makes any sense at all to anyone but yourself apparently.

Non-responsive, your honor. I repeat the question!

And "apparently" is more your view, isn't it? -- And of course, Techdirt and its fanboys having driven off all reasonable persons, the lack of tolerance to just simply let my views be seen isn't surprising!

Re: Re: Someone state EXACTLY WHY this is censored. It's JUST MY VIEW.

I think that's how he likes it. It's the same kind of thing as conspiracy theorists. The fact that they're one of only a few who "gets it" really boosts their ego and makes them feel special. The more anyone protests that no one and nothing agrees with what they're saying only reinforces their belief that they're the only smart and sane one in an ocean of "idiots".

And thus admitting that they were wrong about something would require them to admit to themselves a whole bunch of stuff that their ego and sense of self-worth is built upon. And this is not something easily done once you're that far down the rabbit hole.

Re: Someone state EXACTLY WHY this is censored. It's JUST MY VIEW.

Users of outlaw sites MUST accept any and all risks therefrom.

This is like saying "people are trespassing on my land, therefore it's their fault if they fall in that well I intentionally removed the cover from." Intentionally creating risk is legally suspect, even against people who are "out of bounds".

Plus, if people are infected with malware, that's bad whether or not you like what those people are doing. (Unless you like botnets.) Allowing an infringing site to have a security certificate is perhaps like giving clean needles to IV drug users so they don't spread AIDS and hepatitis.

And you cannot reasonably claim that a "researcher" CAN'T afford to pay for access but CAN afford much larger costs of equipment and materials to make useful products.

What if I told you that Harvard paid over $16 million for journal subscriptions in 2012? These costs aren't insignificant.

You / they thereby have no basis in law for complaining.

There are several basis for complaining. The action effects an entire site, including any noninfringing material. The action goes after an unrelated third party (the CA) instead of the actual infringers. The action is probably ineffective. The action is redundant, since seizing the domain name makes the certificates invalid anyway. The action increases the size of the already unwieldy revocation lists. The action potentially makes us all less safe. Etc.

Re: Re: Someone state EXACTLY WHY this is censored. It's JUST MY VIEW.

it's their fault if they fall in that well I intentionally removed the cover from

Good TRY, "AC", but the content owners don't have a well on their land: it's on someone else's, whom you absolve not only of responsibility for the well, but for the attractive lures they put out in flashing neon lights: "COME PLAY HERE!"

What if I told you that Harvard paid over $16 million for journal subscriptions in 2012? These costs aren't insignificant.

Harvard has BILLIONS from investments and other income among which 16 million IS insignificant.

There are several basis for complaining.

Emphasis added: "You / they thereby have no basis in law for complaining." Sci-Hub has been TOLD it's illegally infringing and yet continues. You sure as hell are NOT going to convince the court which has already decided that defying its decision gives a basis. -- Take those to court, then! Oh, wait. Sci-Hub doesn't bother to show up. There's NO redress possible for the wrongs you allege outside of a court, period.

'How am I supposed to parody THAT?!'

But Matt was a bit off in his predicted timing on this. After his article ran, we learned of at least a few examples of copyright holders going after security certificate providers. Take for example this copyright notice that was sent to Squarespace (the host), Tucows (the domain register), and Let's Encrypt (the security certificate provider).

As always it's difficult to parody and/or poe extremists(copyright or otherwise) because odds are good they'll either see it and think, 'Hey, what a great idea!', or they have or will soon do something even more nuts.

AGAIN: Someone state EXACTLY WHY this is censored. JUST MY VIEW.

It's Sci-Hub and persons using it who go out of bounds. You / they thereby have no basis in law for complaining.

Users of outlaw sites MUST accept any and all risks therefrom.

All you have to do is keep your paws off what belongs to others, kids. You are not being tortured.

NOR IS society losing by "information" not "shared". The studies, regardless how funded, are properly libraried and available. Libraries cost money: need SOME revenue. You're as ever blithely assuming that systems can withstand unlimited freeloaders.

And you cannot reasonably claim that a "researcher" CAN'T afford to pay for access but CAN afford much larger costs of equipment and materials to make useful products.

Now prove how intellectual, open to opposing ideas and insightful Techdirt is with the dog-pile of ad hom, and censoring this SERIES of comments. You love to hide ideas don't like, so I'll make more clicks.

That's so right! I've been visiting this site since about '03, and have been getting to the point where I hardly even bother to read any comments anymore, because it devolves into that damn AC bitching and moaning about being censored. Which is odd, for someone who's being censored, he seems to post about 40% of all the comments, with another 20% of the comments being replying to his whinging.

Ya know what he would REALLY hate? Ever hear of shunning? It would be so refreshing if everyone on this board just acted like he didn't exist. Hide the dumbass comment if you wish, just don't engage. Much like global thermonuclear war, the only way to win is not to play.

Re: AGAIN: Someone state EXACTLY WHY this is censored. JUST MY VIEW.

Re: AGAIN: Someone state EXACTLY WHY this is censored. JUST MY VIEW.

If it makes you feel any better, I unhide comments when I'm reading TD because without it the threads get really confusing. One thing I've always found interesting though is when people online get to complaining about being rejected by a given community that they don't mesh well with in the first place. As kids there was always the one who brought something we all needed that everyone pandered to: "It's Jimmy's ball, so don't piss him off or he'll leave and nobody can play." On the internet it seems the more common stance is, "I'm here and I don't want to play this game so I'm going to be as disruptive as possible until we do what I want to do (instead of going with those other kids that are already doing what I want to do)". I accept that the practice of 'going where people agree with you' adds to the echo-chambering effect of the internet in general, but I don't see how that's any more culturally unhealthy than someone screaming for the attention of people that don't want to hear what they're trying to say.

Re: Re: AGAIN: Someone state EXACTLY WHY this is censored. JUST MY VIEW.

> screaming for the attention of people that don't want to hear what they're trying to say.

But I'm not. *I just want to state my opinion on this site that solicits opinions with HTML code for that exact purpose.*

There can be NO doubt just from the above that the majority and site itself don't want my opinions here. Do you see Masnick weighing in: "Now, now. I want ALL views aired here." -- Let alone: "Since this 'report' button has become de facto censorship tool, I'm going to give it a re-think." -- NO. Masnick provides the button and allows the use. -- But it's ONLY used against dissent! No fanboy ever has a comment hidden.

Anyhoo, regard me as contrarian or screaming: fact is that I disagree with the views of Techdirt / Masnick, FIRST, and that I suffer vile ad hom here, NEVER start it, never even get excited! (Because the kids want me to sink to their level.)

The shallow content of your arguments do not earn you scorn and flagging. Your antagonistic attitude and sneering at people who think differently than you—your decision to cast yourself as a martyr who is better than everyone else—is what creates the consequences you continually prove that you deserve. Act like a decent person who can argue without spewing insults and ad homs; that will get you farther than acting like your comments being hidden is the literal equivalent of being crucified.

This blog post from last month about Extended Validation certificates being revoked shortly after issuance without much in the way of explanation also seems relevant in that it shows the power a CA has over access to websites.

Comments hidden yet again. Techdirt cannot stand dissent.

It's Sci-Hub and persons using it who go out of bounds. You / they thereby have no basis in law for complaining.

Users of outlaw sites MUST accept any and all risks therefrom.

All you have to do is keep your paws off what belongs to others, kids. You are not being tortured.

NOR IS society losing by "information" not "shared". The studies, regardless how funded, are properly libraried and available. Libraries cost money: need SOME revenue. You're as ever blithely assuming that systems can withstand unlimited freeloaders.

And you cannot reasonably claim that a "researcher" CAN'T afford to pay for access but CAN afford much larger costs of equipment and materials to make useful products.

BOY, did this prove prescient, huh?

Now prove how intellectual, open to opposing ideas and insightful Techdirt is with the dog-pile of ad hom, and censoring this SERIES of comments. You love to hide ideas don't like, so I'll make more clicks.

feeding the trolls

I just counted thirty (30) flagged/hidden posts, that's about a third of all comments (and most of the other two-thirds are just troll-feeders). Anyone who thinks they're suddenly going to change this troll's mind or at least engage in rational debate --after many years of futility-- are going to be sadly disappointed.

I'm starting to understand why Twitter uses that much-hated practice of "shadow-banning" to sandbox-in trolls, because otherwise, the trolls win every time. Because we let them win. That's because there is no way to beat a troll -- if you respond, they win. It's as simple as that.

Re: feeding the trolls

Anyone who thinks they're suddenly going to change this troll's mind or at least engage in rational debate --after many years of futility-- are going to be sadly disappointed.

I don't think anyone actually expects a productive or even honest discussion from them, the usual motivations are likely just entertainment seeing what latest crazy they can come up with, sharpening argument and writing skills that can be used with someone else by pointing out how they got something wrong again, or both.

I was having fun poking at them, but I suppose you're right and I should just go back to 'flag and move on' as I've advised others to do.